I almost to the point....
... of saying "fuck it. You want smaller government, have it."
When you whine because it's not what you expected, go fuck yourself.
If private enterprise wants road to move their goods and employees, and for consumers to get to their places of business, they can make road themselves.
If you want protection, use your gun or get a dog.
If you have a dispute with your employer, neighbor, grocer, handle it yourself.
If you have 3 kids in school, send them to a private school and pay 3+ times what it would cost in public school, or home school them, and lose an income and your kids can be educated by an amateur.
If fracking poisons your drinking water, or toxic waste is spilled on your property, move.
If you get sick, go to your rabi.
Have fun. Imma move to Canada.
I feel ya, Spexx. As things around me break and deteriorate, and everything costs more and more and more, as everything seems to be a racket to squeeze one more penny out...I've about had it.
When you work your whole life and do better and better but you can't keep up with the cost of EVERYTHING, I've about had it.
I'd love to move to Canada. Apparently though, it ain't as easy as it sounds. Bet I could get a job there though.
*cue pseudo-patriots screaming: you don't like it? Then GO...we don't wantchoo here anyhow, you unamerican traitor.
counterpoint/devil's adv.
If you want protection, use your gun or get a dog.
911 is a joke in many locations. You must take steps to protect yourself, period. It is part of your responsibility as a citizen.
If you have a dispute with your employer, neighbor, grocer, handle it yourself.
This is great advice and I'm not sure why even the biggest of big gov advocate would suggest that neighborly disputes should be handled by government.
If you have 3 kids in school, send them to a private school and pay 3+ times what it would cost in public school
Actually public schooling, per child, is usually about twice the cost of private schooling. In Pennsylvania this became so embarrassing that the legislature once ordered the reported numbers of per-child spending to be cut by a third using accounting methods.
This also means that, if you are a fan of public schools, you should be very happy with the people who decide not to use them. They don't cut the budget just because Timmy doesn't show up. The rest of the pupils get that dough and a better teacher-student ratio.
or home school them, and lose an income and your kids can be educated by an amateur.
In a teacher-student ratio of as little as 1:1. That turns out to work well:
...homeschoolers, on the average, out-performed their counterparts in the public schools by 30 to 37 percentile points in all subjects. A significant finding when analyzing the data for 8th graders was the evidence that homeschoolers who are homeschooled two or more years score substantially higher than students who have been homeschooled one year or less. source
If fracking poisons your drinking water, move.
And if global warming produced by coal and oil affects your planet, and you can't switch to a less dangerous fuel, move to Mars.
[if] toxic waste is spilled on your property,
Sue. Li'l government advocates say handling such matters as property disputes is a more reliable way to prevent pollution. Of course the biggest polluters on the planet have always been in big-gov lands. When Poland was Communist the rivers were the worst in the world. Now, of all nations, China is the biggest polluter because the government is making the decisions. And the biggest polluter in the world? Not a corporation, it's the government of the USA, Department of Defense.
source
Have fun. Imma move to Canada.
I'm sure you meant China. The bigger government the better, right?
Actually public schooling, per child, is usually about twice the cost of private schooling. In Pennsylvania this became so embarrassing that the legislature once ordered the reported numbers of per-child spending to be cut by a third using accounting methods.
This also means that, if you are a fan of public schools, you should be very happy with the people who decide not to use them. They don't cut the budget just because Timmy doesn't show up. The rest of the pupils get that dough and a better teacher-student ratio.
My out of pocket for three kids in school was about $6,000/year. Can you name a private school where it costs $6,000 for 3 kids?
In a teacher-student ratio of as little as 1:1. That turns out to work well:
...homeschoolers, on the average, out-performed their counterparts in the public schools by 30 to 37 percentile points in all subjects. A significant finding when analyzing the data for 8th graders was the evidence that homeschoolers who are homeschooled two or more years score substantially higher than students who have been homeschooled one year or less. source
That's in today's situation, where home schooling is a choice. I'll bet home schooled kids today are from households with at a least a college educated parent/teacher. Homeschooling will be the only option for low income families. Many many kids will be schooled by inadequately prepared parents.
Sue.
No suing. That's government.
I think you would find many people very happy to not have to pay taxes for public schools. Once my own kids get through public school, why would I want to pay to educate somebody else's kids? Older citizens routinely vote against school bond proposals.
I think you would find many people very happy to not have to pay taxes for public schools.
Once my own kids get through public school, why would I want to pay to educate somebody else's kids?
Older citizens routinely vote against school bond proposals.
Some older citizens have $ troubles of their own, and so vote their own interest.
But others (like grandparents) are strong supporters of their schools.
So I wouldn't want to characterize them as "routinely against...".
Why would you want to pay to educate someone else's kids ?
How about because someone paid for
your education, not just your parents.
This is my problem with corporations getting tax exemptions.
They want their educated employees, but they don't want to pay for the education.
Ummm... maybe not... maybe they do want dullards to pick their cotton.
.
My out of pocket for three kids in school was about $6,000/year. Can you name a private school where it costs $6,000 for 3 kids?
The actual cost of educating your three kids was $39,615 ($13,205 each)
source
In other words, you paid $6000 per year and the government paid another $33,615 per year.
Can you name a private school where it costs $6,000 for 3 kids?
Yes, there are many that are free.
Free ones tend to be in worse-off areas because, naturally, if you have income people expect you to pay to your ability.
But just in non-Philly SEPA?
Private school is generally much cheaper K-8 than 9-12 BUT, if you were Catholic (just because it's easier to find those numbers), you could have sent them all to St Pius X in Broomall for K-8 for $7,750 and saved the government all that money.
The kids would have gotten a better education and the taxpayers a huge break, but hey! You saved like a thou per year!
Then if you wanted to continue to be considerate, you could have sent them to Cardinal O'Hara for $11,700 per year ($3900 each) for 9-12. That would have only saved government only $21,915 per year.
The joke's on you now, because as a taxpayer you will continue to spend money out of pocket every year to educate your neighbor's kids. And those little snots aren't learning shit.
No suing. That's government.
That's
small government, as opposed to your legislation-licenses-inspection big gov't approach.
This is a thread about big versus small government.
In other words, you paid $6000 per year and the government paid another $33,615 per year.
No, my community (up to and including the US) paid the rest.
Yes, there are many that are free. Free ones tend to be in worse-off areas because, naturally, if you have income people expect you to pay to your ability.
All parents/guardians are expected to contribute financially to their child’s tuition
Wouldn't be free for my kids.
Private school is generally much cheaper K-8 than 9-12 BUT, if you were Catholic (just because it's easier to find those numbers), you could have sent them all to St Pius X in Broomall for K-8 for $7,750 and saved the government all that money.
The kids would have gotten a better education and the taxpayers a huge break, but hey! You saved like a thou per year!
Then if you wanted to continue to be considerate, you could have sent them to Cardinal O'Hara for $11,700 per year ($3900 each) for 9-12. That would have only saved government only $21,915 per year.
"Catholic school" is "better education"? I don't think so, especially when they teach you that you aren't responsible for anything, the father figure in the sky that controls everything is.
The joke's on you now, because as a taxpayer you will continue to spend money out of pocket every year to educate your neighbor's kids.
It's my pleasure to contribute to the good of the community and the continued success of our great nation.
And those little snots aren't learning shit.
'Cause they're going to catholic school.;)
<snip>
The joke's on you now, because as a taxpayer you will continue
to spend money out of pocket every year to educate your neighbor's kids.
And those little snots aren't learning shit.
If someone does send their children to private school and
pays whatever tuition is charged, do they not still pay
the (property ?) taxes that support their public schools
... and all those little snots that are your neighbors ?
The joke's on you now, because as a taxpayer you will continue to spend money out of pocket every year to educate your neighbor's kids. And those little snots aren't learning shit.
I paid for other people's children for approx 20 years.
I didn't think the joke was on me.
Why? Because the next generation was getting an education and was legally required to be shut up somewhere from 09.00-15.00 (approx) five days a week.
Why would
anyone want the next generation to be poorly educated or completely uneducated and potentially free to roam the streets from age 5?! Truancy is already a problem for some children, but at least schools can work closely with local Councils thanks to minimise it.
I accept some children are home-schooled well. But as Spexx says, that's usually by educated parents, or at least in homes where parents can survive on one income. I shudder to think of the social divide that would be created by the withdrawal of free education.
But then the idea has always horrifed me, since I first came across it here.
I had no concept it was even an option in a developed country.
"Catholic school" is "better education"? I don't think so, especially when they teach you that you aren't responsible for anything, the father figure in the sky that controls everything is.
This religion is only a speck harder to believe than the religion of Spexxism, where you aren't responsible for anything, the government that controls everything is.
The Government that Governs Best is the Government that governs least. I don't know about you but I'd rather not have the G-Men controlling my life. Any program that promotes larger government should be thoroughly examined to see if it is a necessity.
And those 40 million families living in poverty, earning less than $17,000 per year for a family of 3, can somehow miraculously afford $13000 per year to educate that child? :eek:
This works out real well for the people who already pay for private schooling and actually have the financial position to own a home. They continue to pay the same tuition, but they no longer have to pay the educational taxes.
Pretty much screws those 40 million in poverty though. Oh well, who cares about them anyway? Let 'em get a real job and stop having kids and quit spending food stamps on big screen tv's. Yeah.
Ah but, beyond the educational argument, there's the infrastructure being privatized...roads, hospitals, airports, prisons, water/sewer systems, police being privatized, removal of environmental protections (fuck the future generations, profits > all!), lack of agencies to prevent abuses of all types...abuse of elders, abuse of children, abuse of spouses, abuse of employees, abuse of power, etc. Abuse would just run rampant, unchecked.
Who exactly decides how much government is too much and how much is too little? Oh wait...those in POWER decide. If it benefits them, it's all good. If it screws the weak and vulnerable citizens, who fucking cares really?
Until they rise up like Cairo and Syria and Bahrain. Then maybe someone might care.
Or not.
This works out real well for the people who already pay for private schooling and actually have the financial position to own a home. They continue to pay the same tuition, but they no longer have to pay the educational taxes.
I don't think so. Everyone pays school taxes if they own property regardless if your child attends K-12 or not.
No, I mean IF there is no more public schooling. IF everyone pays for school, then there is no reason for educational taxes.
This religion is only a speck harder to believe than the religion of Spexxism, where you aren't responsible for anything, the government that controls everything is.
[COLOR="DarkSlateGray"][CENTER][SIZE="5"][FONT="Arial Black"]I AM YOUR DEITY![/FONT][/SIZE][/CENTER][/COLOR]
Kneel Before me!
All your responsibilities are belong to me!
@ Stormie Oh, gotcha. Yeh, thats not happening anytime soon.
Oh, gotcha. Yeh, thats not happening anytime soon.
Still no sense of humor. Here we go again.:rolleyes:
Head like a HO black as my Soul I'd rather die than give you control..
Still no sense of humor. Here we go again.:rolleyes:
that was a response to Stormie, not you. :eyebrow:
This is how the thread peters out??
Well, I enjoyed this, my lensmeister, perhaps we can do it again sometime?
Not with a bang, but a Stormie...
that was a response to Stormie, not you. :eyebrow:
Thank you for adding the "@stormie". I misunderstood.
This is how the thread peters out??
I think it ended with misrepresentation:
This religion is only a speck harder to believe than the religion of Spexxism, where you aren't responsible for anything, the government that controls everything is.
Head like a HO black as my Soul I'd rather die than give you control..
Dude, God and Jesus already control you.
where you aren't responsible for anything, the government that controls everything is.
That makes since!!
"Catholic school" is "better education"? I don't think so, especially when they teach you that you aren't responsible for anything, the father figure in the sky that controls everything is.
I have two atheistic children in Catholic school. They are receiving a far superior education than their public school counterparts for about $6k each. I'll stand with UT on this. I went to a bad public school. Someone else will have to defend them.
I don't think it's right to "suck off" the system and that's what a lot of people do. With larger government comes the people who "work" the system. The only way for Big Systems to work' is to work' the system and most people don't. Just acknowledge that Jesus loves the church in Philly and bow at the feet of the people who run the church and this whole thing will make since.
I have two atheistic children in Catholic school. They are receiving a far superior education than their public school counterparts for about $6k each. I'll stand with UT on this. I went to a bad public school. Someone else will have to defend them.
There are good and bad public and private schools. My 3 kids have received a superior education in a public school, for $6k combined.
I and my three siblings all went to public schools, with excellent outcomes. Educationally, I'm the slacker in the family - only a bachelors' degree. One sister has a PhD, the other is working on a MD/PhD, and my brother got a Masters in Education, and is now teaching mathematics at one of those very same public schools we all went to.
If not for the No Child Left Behind/Race to the Top/Michelle Rhee crap that is now in vogue, I would have no reservation championing public over private. Hopefully that will blow over.
It is also worth noting that one of the reasons private school is so much cheaper than public school is precisely because they don't have to take everyone. Kids with behavior problems and non-supportive family lives and disabilities don't get to go to private school, and they're the ones who cost the most.
... and because many of them have unpaid (volunteer) staff,
such as nuns, lay people, and do not pay taxes on all school property,
receive donations, bequests, gifts in kind, and on and on,
and some "private" schools even receive government $ in various forms.
It boarders on disingenuous to compare $ costs to say private schools "cost" less.
That's almost like saying private hospitals cost less than public hospitals... until you receive the full accounting bills.
I acknowledge that Clod. I just wanted Spexx to know his assumption about Catholic Schools doesn't match reality here. Also in the interest of full disclosure, I work for a non-profit educating some of those kids, because the public system couldn't control costs. I agree with HM that NCLB is a disaster. Education should be controlled as close to the child's home as possible. I'm all for society taking an interest in education so that every child has opportunity, but would argue with folks who think football stadiums are a significant interest.
From my perspective every expansion of government has a serious cost to society. Those costs can be discussed and choices can be made on the basis of each. Public education has important benefits to society. Bailouts for car makers, banks, lenders, and homeowners do not benefit society but rather damage it by destroying the rationality of the marketplace. Every expansion of government power creates more opportunity for corruption. Look at our food supply for evidence of large corporations using their government influence to control the market. Look at Halliburton and other military contractors for war-mongering and absurd publicly financed contracts which reduce our security... sorry I got ranty but I tire of the phoney Democratic v Republican choice that is being shoved down our throats. Democratic pitchmen pimp a free ride for all and Republican's pimp a free ride for corporate America. Both gladly punish working people by destroying the value of a saved dollar and a life carefully planned and lead.
My 3 kids have received a superior education in a public school, for $6k combined.
$39,615 per year combined
I acknowledge that Clod. I just wanted Spexx to know his assumption about Catholic Schools doesn't match reality here. Also in the interest of full disclosure, I work for a non-profit educating some of those kids, because the public system couldn't control costs.
Oh yes, I know you understand the issues of public vs. private and mainstream vs. special education better than probably anyone else here. My comment wasn't aimed at you at all.
On the subject of religious private schools, I went to a Lutheran school from Kinder through 2nd, because my mother wanted me to start school a year early and the public schools wouldn't let her. It was a vastly superior school experience, and I suffered major culture shock when I switched to public school in 3rd grade. We had weekly chapel and learned only religious songs in music class... but it wasn't until years later that I even understood that the adults teaching us these things actually
believed them. I assumed it must be like a Santa Claus thing. And the music was very pretty, after all.
I was curious about the costs here. So I looked it up. First of all, Arlington public schools are outstanding, although there is an achievement gap caused in large part by a constant influx of immigrants who just can't get up to speed on English fast enough to test well.
Arlington County spends more than any other district in the region, and is often in the top ten in the nation for its per pupil spending. This year, they spent $18,047 per pupil. So that's $36,094 for my two kids.
Last year, our family paid $5,179 in property taxes to Arlington, and since the county spends about half of its revenue on education, roughly $2,590 of my money went into the schools here.
So, the bottom line is I put $2,590 in, to get $36,094 out.
The local catholic school has a pretty good reputation, and I've known a couple kids who go there. They seem bright enough, so I figure the catholic school is doing alright too. Tuition at the catholic school is $5,743 if you are catholic or $9145 if you are not catholic. If you have two kids, you get a discount. $9962 for two catholics or $15,814 for two non-catholics.
I went to Catholic elementary. In the public rural Jr Hi, we were all placed in the accelerated classes because of our elementary education. We were learning stuff in JR HI that I'd already covered in elementary. This is not to say the Jr Hi was lacking, just that we got a superior education at the catholic school.
However, this public rural school has amassed an amazing reputation, winning awards of excellence. One of my cow orkers was telling me that he knew of two people who moved into the district just for that school. It's where my nieces go, and it's amazing. There is also a huge sense of community...farmers and the like take pride in their community and their school system. It's grown to a big campus, with the jr hi now with the hs and elementaries...instead of the Jr Hi being in BFE (god i loved that old building but boy did my mom hate having to come get us after practice) and 4 elementary schools scattered throughout the district. Though smaller in student number than the local town high schools, the district covers a much larger area.
$39,615 per year combined
Where does this number come from, if it is the cost of the education in public school it proves throwing money at it problem does not work.
Divided by three it's the average per-pupil in southeastern PA.
I went to a bad public school. Someone else will have to defend them.
But you turned out to be one of PA's, if not America's, most outstanding citizens.
It is also worth noting that one of the reasons private school is so much cheaper than public school is precisely because they don't have to take everyone. Kids with behavior problems and non-supportive family lives and disabilities don't get to go to private school, and they're the ones who cost the most.
And those numbers are increasing at an alarming rate.
...We had weekly chapel and learned only religious songs in music class... but it wasn't until years later that I even understood that the adults teaching us these things actually believed them. I assumed it must be like a Santa Claus thing. And the music was very pretty, after all.
I thought every kid felt that way about their early exposure, until I met a few Catholic girls who were so traumatized by teaching Nuns, they bought the whole spiel literally.
But you turned out to be one of PA's, if not America's, most outstanding citizens.
You really know how to hurt a sometime anarchist. ;)
It serves you right for setting the bar so ridiculously high for the rest of us.:p:
Democratic pitchmen pimp a free ride for all
Odd, that's not the message I get.
You're on the team brother. :) Its more obvious from the outside.
I see republicans as "everybody is on their own, and I'll get what's best for me any way I can".
I see Democrats as "We're a community, and I'm willing to give as well as take".
The problem, of course, with such a high-minded notion is that always, always, always, what any particular body gives or takes is decided by 'someone else' with little to no regard given to what that body 'wants' or actually 'needs'.
You want me, for example, to pay for the 'benefits' I supposedly receive from living in a 'society'? Fine: send me a bill for the specific benefits I've gotten.
What? It's not possible to isolate my particular use of 'public service' and bill me accordingly? Certainly seems like the Electric Company, the Water Company, the Garbage Service, and any number of other private service providers, have no such problem determining exactly what I owe them for any specific service.
And: each of those service providers offers mechanisms for settling disputes between company and customer (try disputing your 'bill' with the IRS sometime... ;) )
My point: 'government' is supposed to be about service and proxies, not directives and governors....what an individual pays should be tied intimately to services rendered to 'that' individual, not as generalized tribute in support of *communitarian agenda.
*the republicans are much a communitarian bunch as the democrats...apart from what representatives of each party 'say', the two parties are EXACTLY the same.
The problem, of course, with such a high-minded notion is that always, always, always, what any particular body gives or takes is decided by 'someone else' with little to no regard given to what that body 'wants' or actually 'needs'.
You want me, for example, to pay for the 'benefits' I supposedly receive from living in a 'society'? Fine: send me a bill for the specific benefits I've gotten.
What? It's not possible to isolate my particular use of 'public service' and bill me accordingly? Certainly seems like the Electric Company, the Water Company, the Garbage Service, and any number of other private service providers, have no such problem determining exactly what I owe them for any specific service.
And: each of those service providers offers mechanisms for settling disputes between company and customer (try disputing your 'bill' with the IRS sometime... ;) )
My point: 'government' is supposed to be about service and proxies, not directives and governors....what an individual pays should be tied intimately to services rendered to 'that' individual, not as generalized tribute in support of *communitarian agenda.
*the republicans are much a communitarian bunch as the democrats...apart from what representatives of each party 'say', the two parties are EXACTLY the same.
That's all very selfish of you.
I live in The
Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania. It's part of The
United States Of America.
"That's all very selfish of you."
No: it's called 'self-interest' and 'self-determination'.
#
"I live in The Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania. It's part of The United States Of America."
And I live on Earth where nearly seven billion individuals compete to live.
"The Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania" and "The United States Of America" are, to me, placeholders applied to fictions foisted up to keep folks like yourself 'in-line' and 'quiet' (domesticated).
Neither is 'real'.
Certainly the indignities promoted in service of the two (and any other 'we') are 'real', but your 'commonwealth', your 'union': ghost whispers and angel farts.
"That's all very selfish of you."
No: it's called 'self-interest' and 'self-determination'.
"Selfish", "self-interest", "self-determination" - doesn't matter. It's all about you.
Neither is 'real'.
Certainly the indignities promoted in service of the two (and any other 'we') are 'real', but your 'commonwealth', your 'union': ghost whispers and angel farts.
How about "family"? Just because you came out of someone's vagina, or the same vagina as someone else, or someone came out of your vagina doesn't mean you have to give them a break in global competition, does it? "Family" isn't real, is it?
"It's all about you."
Yep. Just as, from your standpoint, it's all about 'you' (your morality, your ethic, your notion of what is 'good' and 'true' and 'just'), making you as self-interested/selfish as me.
#
"How about "family"?'
Fuck 'em. There are huge segments of my extended family I despise (the feeling is, of course, mutual)...they get nothing...not a 'break': nothing...hell, I wouldn't piss on any of them to put them out if any were on fire.
I extend 'breaks' to those I love.
*shrug*
But, of course, all this hooey about 'breaks' and 'family' and whatnot has nothing at all to do with "We're a community, and I'm willing to give as well as take" unless you wanna conflate 'family' ('the family of man'...another grand crock of shit) with 'community'.
Apples and oranges...
"It's all about you."
Yep. Just as, from your standpoint, it's all about 'you' (your morality, your ethic, your notion of what is 'good' and 'true' and 'just'), making you as self-interested/selfish as me.
As a Liberal, I'm tolerant and permissive (or so the stereotype goes). I'm pro choice, etc, yada, blah blah blah.
I extend 'breaks' to those I love.
You think love is real? Ha!
I see republicans as "everybody is on their own, and I'll get what's best for me any way I can".
I see Democrats as "We're a community, and I'm willing to give as well as take".
:facepalm:[COLOR="White"]>>>[/COLOR]:headshake
:facepalm:[COLOR="White"]>>>[/COLOR]:headshake
Wow, that is deeeeeeep. I can even begin to respond to all the substance in your post. Thank you for taking the time to post such a thoughtful comment. You've added so much to the dialogue.
Yep - bout as much as your D=good R=bad post.
Yep - bout as much as your D=good R=bad post.
I stated my perception. If you view D as good and R as bad, so be it. Henry seemed to agree with my assessment as felt that Rs were good for that very reason.
Do you dispute that my assessment is accurate?
Its as accurate as one wants it to be.
More depth. Thanks for playing.
Spare me - Your D= / R= is as valid as
D = someone else take care of it.
R = Take care of it myself.
"You think love is real? Ha!"
Nope. 'Love', as noun, as thing, is fiction...'I love' (as subject/verb, as directed action) is real.
#
"Henry seemed to agree with my assessment as felt that Rs were good for that very reason."
Actually, what I posted is, 'the republicans are much a communitarian bunch as the democrats...apart from what representatives of each party 'say', the two parties are EXACTLY the same.' To be clear: what I'm saying is the Rs and the Ds are promoters of hooey and horseshit...hooey and horseshit designed solely to hoodwink folks like you into being 'good' (a nice cog in some one else's machine).
*shrug*
Spare me - Your D= / R= is as valid as
D = someone else take care of it.
R = Take care of it myself.
You missed the point, again.
"You think love is real? Ha!"
Nope. 'Love', as noun, as thing, is fiction...'I love' (as subject/verb, as directed action) is real.
#
"Henry seemed to agree with my assessment as felt that Rs were good for that very reason."
Actually, what I posted is, 'the republicans are much a communitarian bunch as the democrats...apart from what representatives of each party 'say', the two parties are EXACTLY the same.' To be clear: what I'm saying is the Rs and the Ds are promoters of hooey and horseshit...hooey and horseshit designed solely to hoodwink folks like you into being 'good' (a nice cog in some one else's machine).
*shrug*
Whose machine, henry? SOMEONE is running that machine. The republican 'type' and ideology, to put too dull a point on it, is the machine that many of us are tired of being a cog to.
Again: '...the two parties are EXACTLY the same'.
I disagree.
One machine inputs the hard work and blood and sweat and tears of the 'common' folk and spits out profits and pollution and crap for the elite.
Another machine inputs the hard work and blood and sweat and tears of every folk and spits out rewards for every folk.
In the simplest of terms, of course.
Yes, and those folks aren't Rs OR Ds.
What I see: the 'reward' of being a good slave (to either side).
*shrug*
I'm never going to get that cheeseburger and coca-cola, am I? ;)
Sure! I'll buy ‘em meself...'cause I WANT to, not 'cause I HAVE to... ;)
Sure! I'll buy ‘em FOR meself...'cause I WANT to, not 'cause I HAVE to... ;)
FTFY
When a body can't win (or even hold firm ground) in a debate, and resorts to altered quotes to foist up an insult, well: (F)*** (T)*** (F)*** (Y)**... ;)
When a body meets a body
Comin' through the wry...
When a body can't win (or even hold firm ground) in a debate, and resorts to altered quotes to foist up an insult, well: (F)*** (T)*** (F)*** (Y)**... ;)
There's no winning a debate with someone as selfish as you.
you're just not *giving* enough. :right:
My point: 'government' is supposed to be about service and proxies, not directives and governors....what an individual pays should be tied intimately to services rendered to 'that' individual, not as generalized tribute in support of *communitarian agenda.
Service and proxies. Ok, will you please give me a few examples of the kinds of services and proxies you're talking about here?
Also--
Directives and governors, would you please give me a couple examples of what you have in mind here too?
I imagine you consider the services and proxies favorable aspects of government and directives and governors unfavorable ones. If this is incorrect, just say so and give me the right description please. The payment structure seems clear enough to me.
Thanks.
"There's no winning a debate with someone as selfish as you."
Maybe, but, you aren't even trying... ;)
When I say 'proxies and services' I mean EVERYTHING currently done by federal, state, and local 'government'.
A proxy -- in this context -- is not a private provider (though I'm certainly not opposed to private providers instead of 'government') but rather 'government' and 'governors' assuming the constitutionally dictated role of 'servant', not 'leader'.
For example: I've no need for any president, congressperson, judge, governor, state representative, mayor, city councilperson, etc. to 'lead' me, 'provide' for me, or 'save' me. I don't need to be coddled, preached to, stood up for, directed, or protected. What I want for these folks to do is maintain the esoteric and physical infrastructure of the nation, the state, the town and leave me alone.
I'm certainly willing to pay a mutually agreed upon fee for the benefits I get from that maintenance, but, I will not pay for that which offers me no benefit.
Look at it this way: if my nephew stops up the toilet with TP (and I can't unclog it myself), I'm happy to pay the plumber to come and break the clog...I won't be so happy, however, being expected to pitch in to have my neighbor's clog broken...that toilet (and clog) is HIS problem and he can pay for his own benefits.
"The payment structure seems clear enough to me."
It's very clear...I'm expected to pay for the breaking the clog in my neighbor's toilet...unacceptable.
What if your entire neighborhood gathered together and made a deal to get plumbing services at half price by buying in bulk for everyone?
[SIZE="1"]i forgot my pledge to not ask leading questions[/SIZE]
Hey, that's fine by me, so long as the option to not participate is part of the deal.
Why would someone opt of such an apparently good deal?
Perhaps the plumber in question is just lousy at what he does: I may not see the value in getting crappy work done for half-price.
Or: if I'm a plumber myself, it would be pointless for me to go in on a deal to pay for services I provide to myself.
OK, you know residential plumbing, so you opted out. Now let's say there's a water main break which shuts off water to the entire neighborhood. The neighborhood uses its plumbing service and gets a huge break on the price of fixing it. As a result of the repair, your water is turned back on.
Do you have any obligation to pay part of the bill?
As I (unavoidably) share the water main with the others, for that one time repair, yeah, I'd pay my share of that half-price service.
The problem you present, of course, illustrates directly (and only) the flawed nature of living in such close confines with others (so close that shared water sources are unavoidable). Your problem doesn't, I think, negate my essential argument of paying for what one gets (and not paying for what one has no need or use for).
In fact: your problem, seen in a certain light, supports my position because, in your scenario, I pay for what I need (the water main) and don't pay for what I don't need (the general plumbing).
For example: I've no need for any president, congressperson, judge, governor, state representative, mayor, city councilperson, etc. to 'lead' me,
I agree. These people are my representatives, not my leaders.
You should love Obama, then. One of the biggest criticisms of him, by conservatives, is that he isn't a strong leader.
'provide' for me,
I agree.
or 'save' me. I don't need to be coddled, preached to, stood up for, directed, or protected.
You can protect yourself against the nukes coming from Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan? Wow!
What I want for these folks to do is maintain the esoteric and physical infrastructure of the nation, the state, the town and leave me alone.
I'm certainly willing to pay a mutually agreed upon fee for the benefits I get from that maintenance, but, I will not pay for that which offers me no benefit.
Then others won't pay for that which offers them no benefit. Like your roads, your mail, your water, your sewage treatment, and whatnot. Good luck with those all by youself.
Hey, that's fine by me, so long as the option to not participate is part of the deal.
You've opted in by living our beloved US of A.
As I (unavoidably) share the water main with the others, for that one time repair, yeah, I'd pay my share of that half-price service.
The problem you present, of course, illustrates directly (and only) the flawed nature of living in such close confines with others (so close that shared water sources are unavoidable). Your problem doesn't, I think, negate my essential argument of paying for what one gets (and not paying for what one has no need or use for).
In fact: your problem, seen in a certain light, supports my position because, in your scenario, I pay for what I need (the water main) and don't pay for what I don't need (the general plumbing).
They took away the Unibomber's shack, but you might get a good deal on his (former) property.
OK, now the neighbors are angry. You didn't participate in the plumbing deal they made, so they expect you to pay your share... but pay it at full price.
"These people are my representatives, not my leaders"
For 'reps': those folks sure do hand 'down' a god-awful number of directives.
#
"One of the biggest criticisms of him, by conservatives, is that he isn't a strong leader."
First: I'm not a conservative...I don’t give a flip what 'they' have to say about anything.
Second: in my assessment. Obama is no different than any other sitting politician, that is, he wants power, has power, uses power to gather more power...to get and maintain power, he kisses the (collected) asses of some and directs others...for me: except as obstacle, he isn't relevant.
#
"You can protect yourself against the nukes coming from Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan? Wow!"
Insofar as I'm aware: no atomics are en route to America from any of those places... ;) ...more seriously: the possibility of atomics from one of those places is made all the more possible by the insistent intrusion of American 'governors' into the business of other countries when said intrusion was and is uncalled for and unjustified...tend to the esoteric and physical infrastructure of 'here', leave 'there' alone, and -- maybe -- 'there' will leave 'here' 'be'...also: I have no problem paying for civil defense since, of course, I benefit...as I say: send me the bill for the specific services rendered and -- if all is in order on the invoice -- I'll be glad to pay it.
#
"Then others won't pay for that which offers them no benefit. Like your roads, your mail, your water, your sewage treatment, and whatnot. Good luck with those all by youself."
Lots of folks don't use the roads, the postal service, public water, public sewerage and whatnot, so, why should those folks foot part of the bill for those that do?
For myself: I (currently) use roads (send me the bill), the postal service (send me the bill), public water (send me the bill), public sewerage (send me the bill) and whatnot (send me the bill).
But bill me for the water I use, the specific roads I use, the specific sewage I produce, etc.; don't bill me as you would, for example, a long-haul trucker whose use of the roads is significantly large than mine.
#
"You've opted in by living our beloved US of A."
HA! An accident of birth (that I should 'be', 'now', in 'this' place) obligates me to jack.
#
"you might get a good deal on (the Unibomber's) property"
HA! Since my life is 'here', why the hell would I go 'there'?
Make no mistake: I live where I choose....I go where I choose...tough shit on any one who doesn't like it.
##
"...they expect you to pay your share... but pay it at full price."
We could...
1-go to court and let some schmuck decide things.
2-use a private arbiter to decide things.
3-go to war...I shoot at 'them'...'they' shoot at me...folks die.
4-'they' could come to 'their' senses and accept, what is to me, fair: that is, my paying of my share of the collected half-price bill for the repairs. Keep in mind: that the neighbors came together to seek out this half-price deal doesn't make any of them my proxy, obligates me to nothing (other than paying what is, for all intents, the market value of my share of repairs).
*shrug*
Which do YOU prefer?
For myself: I'm torn between 3 and 4... ;)
You expect to get the benefit of collectivism, even if you don't participate.
How so?
And: define 'collectivism'...it's one of those words misused often.
Well, you demand the price the neighborhood got, even though you didn't participate in their plan.
Your non-participation made the plan less attractive to the market. In the bulk buying negotiation, you were one fewer buyer.
Collectivism: I dunno, I guess what I'm driving at with the word is that it is a collective, whether it's big government, small government, a home-owners association or a voluntary bulk purchasing agreement.
Wikipedia says collective is defined as "a group of entities that share or are motivated by at least one common issue or interest" and collectivism is "any philosophic, political, religious, economic, or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of every human being", so I guess I have overextended the word collectivism here.
Still, there is a collective act in the bulk purchase and that is the part that interests me today.
Here's the problem with, "You expect to get the benefit of collectivism"
I expect nothing...my expectation of others is zilch (more accurately: I expect each person to exercise his or her self-interest as he or she sees it...including the 'self-denying' types like Spexx who, though he says otherwise, is still motivated by his own wants and needs...that he includes as a want or need for everyone to play nice and 'give' despite lack of benefit is still an expression of his self-interest).
As for 'collectivism': while I'm certainly capable of idiosyncratically defining 'collectivism', in this case, I'm going with...
1.The practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it.
2.The theory and practice of the ownership of land and the means of production by the people or the state.
What have I posted that would lead you to believe I support either position, or, that I seek to profit from either position while not participating in either position?
For a variety of reasons (none of which are germane here), I've taken on certain responsibilities for helping to raise my nephew. These commitments mean I live fairly close to the boy (a township in south Louisiana). I prefer a mobile life but -- for the past five years, and for at least the next five -- I'm rooted to the spot. I pay my bills (the ones I accrue) including water, garbage, etc. and have no problem doing so. By way of sales tax, other monies of mine funnel into local roads, libraries, and -- to an extent -- public education. As I see it: in no way am I supporting a collective, in no way agreeing to put the need(s) of any group over my own interests, in no way assigning control over 'me' to a governor or governors, in no way agreeing to be overseen in my work or my living.
From my perspective: I'm simply paying, locally, for what I use locally, paying for services rendered to me (and mine).
#
"you demand the price the neighborhood got, even though you didn't participate in their plan."
And they demanded initially that I participate in a plan I didn't want or need.
*shrug*
#
"Your non-participation made the plan less attractive to the market. In the bulk buying negotiation, you were one fewer buyer."
Not my problem. However, having given it some thought, ya know what I'd probably do? When the main cracked or broke, I'd probably find a plumber on my own and -- without consulting a soul -- pay for the expense out of my own pocket. It might be pricey, but (1) in the long run it'll cost me less than consistently forking up for the half-price maintenance I don't want or need, and, (2) not a soul amongst the 'collective' could tell me shit about shit then.
Win/win: I'm left alone, largely I keep my money, and the collective (and I) gets water.
If, however, it became a habit (the 'collective' actively fucking around with me, demanding my attention and money): I might just burn my house to ground one night, salt the ground, and book it out of town with my typewriter in one hand and my coachgun in the other... ;)
#
The balance between 'I' and 'we' is never static...it wavers, sliding back and forth...what the 'we' must recognize is that the 'I' prefers its 'self'; what the 'I' must recognize is that not every one wants to 'be' 'one' and many prefer the safety and comfort of the 'we'.
"you demand the price the neighborhood got, even though you didn't participate in their plan."
And they demanded initially that I participate in a plan I didn't want or need.
*shrug*
No. If you had opt-out, it was not a *demand* on their part. But it turned out you wanted the benefit of the deal when the water main broke. I was surprised by that.
I'd probably find a plumber on my own and -- without consulting a soul -- pay for the expense out of my own pocket
You most certainly would not. You'd find the best deal you could.
When I say 'proxies and services' I mean EVERYTHING currently done by federal, state, and local 'government'.
A proxy -- in this context -- is not a private provider (though I'm certainly not opposed to private providers instead of 'government') but rather 'government' and 'governors' assuming the constitutionally dictated role of 'servant', not 'leader'.
That sounds wonderful, just like they taught in grammar school.
For example: I've no need for any president, congressperson, judge, governor, state representative, mayor, city councilperson, etc. to 'lead' me, 'provide' for me, or 'save' me. I don't need to be coddled, preached to, stood up for, directed, or protected. What I want for these folks to do is maintain the esoteric and physical infrastructure of the nation, the state, the town and leave me alone.
Unfortunately, without some of these people standing up for you, and protecting you, you'd find yourself living in a democracy. Then you'd be really pissed.
I'm certainly willing to pay a mutually agreed upon fee for the benefits I get from that maintenance, but, I will not pay for that which offers me no benefit.
School taxes are the biggie. If you have no kids, or they are grown, do schools benefit you?
Look at it this way: if my nephew stops up the toilet with TP (and I can't unclog it myself), I'm happy to pay the plumber to come and break the clog...I won't be so happy, however, being expected to pitch in to have my neighbor's clog broken...that toilet (and clog) is HIS problem and he can pay for his own benefits.
That's true... until your drain gets to the street. Then if your neighbor insists on flushing diapers and gerbils that plug the branch on your street.. you pay.
UT,
"No. If you had opt-out, it was not a *demand* on their part. But it turned out you wanted the benefit of the deal when the water main broke. I was surprised by that."
I think you've struck at (without intending to, I'm sure) the essential silliness of your scenario (one which I've stuck to and operated within, faithfully).
While it's wholly possible for a neighborhood to come together and strike a collected bargain with a plumber to access half-price services and products for each residence in the collective, it's unlikely that neighborhood, existing within the bounds of a municipality, would have any direct say-so as to repairs effected on a water main. Such repairs would fall within the sphere of the municipality itself and would be effected by municipal workers, and would be paid for through the individual water bills of those served by the main and/or through discretionary funds in place for such things*.
However...you laid out the (untenable) scenario and I played by the rules...I demanded an opt out (which you didn't object to)...I objected to having to pay more than the others (a function of paying for what I use, not what someone declares is 'fair')...you feign surprise that I would blunt my self-interest to 'play nice' or 'play fair'.
What if the scenario had played off the notion of a neighborhood striking a deal with a plumber to offer services at a reduced price with the understanding (among the neighbors) that with a heavy duty project, like repairing a main, the cost would be split along folks according to water usage (meaning, for example, the man living alone might pay less than the family of five because, according to the compared meters, he uses less than the family): would you object to such an arrangement?
#
"You'd find the best deal you could."
Of course I would! But only 'I' get to decide for 'me' what is a 'best deal'.
Within the silly scenario you generated: the best deal for me might just be to find a plumber on my own and -- without consulting a soul -- pay for the expense out of my own pocket. It might be pricey, but (1) in the long run it'll cost me less than consistently forking up for the half-price maintenance I don't want or need, and, (2) not a soul amongst the 'collective' could tell me shit about shit then.
In other words: 'best deal', for 'me', in your scenario, might have little to do with the actual monetary cost of main repair and everything to do with giving a finger to the collective.
##
Bruce,
"just like they taught in grammar school"
Huh?
#
"without some of these people standing up for you, and protecting you, you'd find yourself living in a democracy"
Question (to anyone who cares to play): please list any and all protections afforded you by 'government'. I'm betting I can illustrate the threats you pay to be defended from are illusory (you pay to fend off fictions), or, were generated (and are maintained) by the folks you pay to keep you 'safe'.
As for democracy: I don't abide 'now' (in a constitutional republic), so, what makes you think I'd abide 'then', in a democracy? Half a dozen of one, six of another to me.
#
"School taxes are the biggie. If you have no kids, or they are grown, do schools benefit you?"
I have no kids, but my nephew is rather important to me and as his Dad opts to send him to public school, I make no big stink about paying into that system.
Kinda hard to completely opt out of it now any way since -- as I mentioned up-thread -- I'm currently stationary and some portion of local sales tax revenue goes to the public school system here.
Question: if a body has no kids, why should he or she support public education?
#
"if your neighbor insists on flushing diapers and gerbils that plug the branch on your street... you pay."
Sure. Part of the price one pays for remaining stationary...I kinda said that up-thread, which you'd know if you'd bothered to actually read any of my other posts... ;)
*the only case where your silly scenario could actually play out is in some kind of communitarian 'commune' (where I wouldn't be allowed), or, a 'libertarian' enclave (where I also wouldn't be allowed)...as an aside: it's always fascinated me how much in common libertarian and communitarians have in common...for all the talk of individual liberty (the king of fictions!) the libertarians are as rule-bound and restrictive as the commies.
first a minor point, henry:
es·o·ter·ic/ˌesəˈterik/
Adjective: Intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest.
So, you think that government SHOULD be involved in complex or obscure issues, and in physical infrastructure issues? What issues are esoteric enough for government involvement?
Moving on to broader issues:
How do you calculate your "bill" for your benefit when, for example, a student who attended public schooling and a public university (which you believe you shouldn't have to pay for without personal benefit) then uses that education directly to invent a process that increases manufacturing efficiency across a wide range of products, which you can then purchase much more cheaply than you did before, thus saving you money?
How do you calculate your "bill" for the fact that some potential criminals may have been deterred by the threat of prison? Should victims of crimes have to pay more in taxes because they used the criminal justice system more?
Playing devil's advocate earlier, UT mentioned that 911 is a joke - but while self-defense against violent crime is certainly a personal responsibility, there is MUCH more to the way a government-run law enforcement and criminal justice system can extend "protection" to citizens than the immediate protection from immediate physical threat of violence.
And what about a "safety net"? Do you think that the destitute, or homeless, or even just unemployed, should not have access to roads, or phone lines, or police protection, or education, or life-saving health care, or ANY government support whatsoever, until they can pay for it? If so, how do you expect them to become able to pay for them?
relatedly: what causes poverty? Are the impoverished ALL just unwilling to make the effort to rise out of poverty? Is it possible to have a country where every single person willing to "try hard enough" can and does rise out of poverty, or can Bad Luck or circumstances beyond their control cause poverty or keep them impoverished too?
And if the poor can be poor for reasons beyond their control - is that just too bad, so sad, talk to the hand, Not My Problem?
I use 'esoteric' in place of, and to point to, 'culture', that is the intangible infrastructure of a nation.
My use is idiosyncratic...apologies for the confusion.
'I' think nations should cease to exist, but, if the USA is to continue, it should follow the blueprint (the Federal Constitution) which largely empowers the 'government' to maintain the esoteric (intangible) and physical infrastructures that fundamentally make the nation 'nation', and not much else.
#
"How do you calculate your "bill"?
In the first case: the student (now inventor) is compensated by way of the profit he or she makes in the sale or lease or his or her work. My 'bill' comes due when I decide to buy his or her work.
In the second case: please provide evidence that any crime has been deterred by the threat of prison.
If you use law enforcement, then pay for it; if you don't, then why should you pay? Three times I've been held up...twice I screamed 'fire' and the mugger ran, the third time I kicked him in the nuts...in none of those cases did the police 'protect and serve'...I kept my money (and life) because of 'me'.
#
"there is MUCH more to the way a government-run law enforcement and criminal justice system can extend "protection" to citizens than the immediate protection from immediate physical threat of violence."
The notion of which scares the hell outta me.
#
"Do you think that the destitute, or homeless, or even just unemployed, should not have access to roads, or phone lines, or police protection, or education, or life-saving health care, or ANY government support whatsoever, until they can pay for it?"
Taking things as they are 'now': it's impossible to deprive a body of access to roads or education or the police or health care or other gov support...the mechanisms are already in place (public education, public roads, etc.)...gimme a time machine and I might fix that for ya… ;)
As for phones: folks are deprived all the time...even a pay phone 'costs' to use.
#
"Are the impoverished ALL just unwilling to make the effort to rise out of poverty?"
No, but not ALL are deserving of a hand up either. You address the problem(s) of an individual by addressing 'that' individual, not by lumping him of her in a 'class' or 'group'.
#
"if the poor can be poor for reasons beyond their control - is that just too bad, so sad, talk to the hand, Not My Problem?"
The answer you get is dependant on who ask...looking for universal solutions is hooey. For myself: as I wrote over in Dissident Philosophy just a little while ago, 'fundamentally: if I'm gonna share 'my' resources, 'I' get to decide who I share with, and why.'